Consistency amongst the censors? Not at the Huffington post it seems.
“Huffington Post censors (or “moderators”, I am never sure
which is the correct title), are a strange crowd, where consistency
has little if any meaning in the decision to publish or not to
publish,. For example, yesterday (Sunday 15th December 2013) a story
appeared in the press, including the Huffington Post, concerning a
rather nasty little man, who currently is Conservative MP for Stratford-on-Avon. The story appeared under the headline of “Tory
MP Nadhim Zahawi Calls For 'Two Child Limit' On Benefits”.
written about Mr Zahawi on previous occasions, particularly about his
MP's expenses claims for heating costsand
other business activities, I put together another posting under the
heading of, “Nadhim Zahawi: Competing to be the nastiest of the
nasties.” for publication on this blog and in the comments sections
of other publications.
the Huffington Post, comments are restricted in terms of the number
of words allowable in each comment. Consequently, posts are, as in
this instance, sometimes
in two or more parts, with each part presumably treated as one post.
It seems that Part 2 of my post yesterday was acceptable to the
sensors at HP, but for some reason, Part 1,containing the main point
of the post together with criticism of Zahawi and his ironic
hypocrisy about people
assuming that taxpayers having a bottomless purse, was deemed to be
unfit for publication.
MP Nadhim Zahawi would limit child benefit and tax credits to a
families first two children.
of the "Nasty party's" nasties to crawl out of the woodwork
with proposals to save money for the tax payer. Zahawi, a member of
David Cameron's policy board, rationalises his proposition with the
notion that, "Capping welfare by family size would save billions
and help the next generation think more carefully about their
relationship with the welfare state". Politicians are
renowned for their ability to have selective memory lapses when it
comes to their own acts or omissions, but Zahawi takes first prize
for patronising contempt, when he adds that "they can no longer
assume the taxpayer has a bottomless purse", This is the
same Nadhim Zahawi who received £5,822.27 for electricity and
heating oil for his estate, funded by the taxpayer through the
notorious MP's expenses gravy train. This petty little hypocrite also
claimed 31p on his expenses for paper-clips, 53p to buy a hole punch,
63p for ballpoint pens and 89p for a stapler.
has also been criticised for reclaiming business costs on
Parliamentary expenses, used a company in an offshore tax haven to
buy a house in his constituency and during 2012/13 claimed a total of
£170,234 in expenses. For him to now champion a further malicious
assault on living standards of families is gross, as the effect is
directed specifically at the children. It is remarkable how so
many Tory MP's are able , without any sense of shame or irony, to
implement measures which, in the name of "saving tax payers
money", inflict hardship and misery on families and individuals
across the country. Measures which are spiteful, divisive and more
akin to dismantling the welfare state than to improving the lives of
ordinary people, pensioners, disabled and unemployed in Britain. In
this, Nadhim Zahawi is no different from the rest in scrambling for
the dubious honour of being the nastiest of the nasties.
am at a loss to understand why Part 1 should fail the test of
“acceptability” with the moderators, and yet Part 2, which when
read in isolation, lacks any
coherence with the main story. It is not as if Part 1 contains any
threats, personal insults, untruths, abuse or is in contravention of
any of the other guidelines generally accepted as the norm for on
line publications. Indeed, it could be argued that a significant
number of the other 206 postings against this article are
contraventions of the “rules”.
one or other of the Huffington Post censors, moderators, or editors
happen to read this blog, perhaps they could comment and enlighten me
and presumably others, as to what actually is acceptable generally
and what was particularly offensive about this specific post, which
was acceptable elsewhere.